F 

sso 


UC-NRLF 


*B    b3D    bM2 


mm. 


V^vSs'a 


iikWxrmfflS®^ 


tSmffa 


.■<♦•.■•■•■■'.;..•••. 


■-'■!■: 


•>jh.. 


1  ■  ■ .  !  -'■ 


kfte-ar 


H 


flj^ 


$' 


H 


■.    1  ■  .    .  ■■ 

tt3A-ffv£.«n£v 
.  I        r 


'■      ■<■•  ■!>■■.   *■    •=■     >'     •■•: 


afcijfm 


REESE  LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


i5j/-^_jir,lJrni!rluJ-1^-lur^Tii/.jirnj!r^^^ur^  u    u     u    u — u    u    u    u    u    u    u    u^u.ijl,^ 


J 


SPEECH 


OF 


JAMES  M.  MASON,  OF  VIRGINIA, 


ON 


THE  BILL  TO  ORGANISE  A  TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENT 


FOR  THE 


TERRITORY  OF  OREGON. 


2.1 "? 


. 


r 


Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  July  6,   1848. 


WASHINGTON: 

FEINTED    BY  'JOHN   T.   TOWERS, 

1848. 


■SB** 


£^ 


5  SPEECH 


tik 


The  bill  establishing  a  Territorial  Government  over  Oregon  being  under  consideration,  Mr. 
MASON  addressed  the  Senate  as  follows : 

Mr.  President  :  It  seems  that  the  people  in  Oregon,  finding  themselves 
without  other  law,  when  the  title  to  the  territory  was  ascertained  and  established 
in  the  United  States,  assembled  in  convention  and  enacted  laws  for  their  tem- 
porary security.  Amongst  these  laws,  we  have  been  duly  informed,  is  one 
by  which  slavery,  or,  as  it  is  termed,  "  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  crime," 
is  forever  prohibited. 

Sir,  whatever  crude  opinions  may  have  been  formed,  when  the  subject  now 
to  be  discussed  was  first  under  consideration  in  this  body,  or  elsewhere^I  ap- 
prehend there  are  none  now  who  will  say  that  the  people  of  a  territory  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States  have  a  right  projirio  jure,  to  pass  laws  in  derogation 
of  the  authority  of  the  United  States.  If  there  were  such  opinions,  they  have 
been  exploded,  and  I  assume  that  there  is  no  Senator,  and  no  jurist,  who  will 
maintain  that  the  people  who  may  be  found  within  a  territory  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  undertaking  for  their  own  safety,  or  for  any  other  reason,  to 
legislate  for  that  territory  without  the  sanction  of  the  Government,  that  such 
laws  have  any  validity  whatever  against  the  owners  of  the  country — that  is  to 
say,  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  Well,  sir,  the  Committee 
on  Territories  in  this  body,  by  instruction  from  the  Senate,  have  reported  a  bill 
providing  a  government  for  the  Territory  of  Oregon — under  the  sanction  of 
what?  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  whose  property  it  is.  And  by 
the  12th  section  of  the  bill,  the  laws  now  existing  within  the  limits  of  Oregon, 
be  they  what  they  may,  are  adopted,  and  declared  to  be  in  full  force  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  people  of  the  Territory.  One  of  those  laws  then  being,  that 
involuntary  servitude,  or  slavery,  shall  be  forever  thereafter  excluded  from  the 
Territory  ;  and  that  law  being  adopted  by  the  bill  upon  your  table,  if  that  bill  be 
enacted  into  law,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  involuntary  servitude  will  be  ex- 
cluded from  that  Territory  by  the  act  cf  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
thus  we  are  called  upon  to  treat  this  bill,  so  far  as  regards  the  12th  section  of  it, 
precisely  as  if  there  was  spread  out  on  its  face  a  prohibition,  in  terms,  against 
slavery  in  that  Territory.  Sir,  it  is  right  it  should  be  clearly  understood,  that 
it  should  be  uncovered,  that  we  should  expose  it,  so  that  we  may  defeat  it  if 
we  can. 

Gentlemen  have  said  upon  this  floor,  that  the  Southern  States,  (where  alone 
this  institution  is  found,)  are  here  agitating  this  question — that  the  Southern 
States  have  presented  the  question  before  the  national  councils — and  that  for  all 
the  consequences  that  result  from  its  agitation,  the  South  is  responsible.  Let, 
then,  the  truth  be  known  ;  let  the  fact  appear  that  a  committee  of  this  body  have 
introduced  a  bill  with  this  provision  in  it,  and  if  there  be  offence  in  agitating  the 
question,  let  the  responsibility  rest  where  it  of  right  belongs.  What  we  seek 
to  do  is  simply  to  defeat  it.  We  ask  no  legislation  on  the  subject  whatever,  but 
having  stricken  this  clause  from  the  bill,  to  leave  it,  as  to  that,  tabula  rasa. 

Mr.  President,  in  common  with  others  who  stand  upon  this  floor,  representa- 
tives of  sovereign  States  of  the  South,  parties  to  this  confederation,  I  depend 
not  upon  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  (as  they  are  called,)  but  upon  its 
guarantees.  And  I  here  announce,  as  I  will  undertake  to  show,  that  if  this  pro- 
vision prevails,  and  it  is  the  deliberate  sense  of  this  Senate,  that  slavery  by  act 
of  Congress,  is  hereafter  to  be  interdicted  in  the  Territory  of  Oregon,  it  is  done 
not  only  in  derogation  of  the  faith  of  the  Constitution,  but  it  is  done  in  violation 


203474 


of  its  letter.  Sir,  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution,  I  am  free  to  admit,  are 
founded  in  compromise,  and  although  there  may  be  no  form  of  expression  in 
the  instrument,  which  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  compromises  existed  ;  yet  they 
will  be  found  in  the  character  of  the  enactments,  and  in  the  contemporaneous 
history  of  the  proceedings  which  led  to  those  enactments.  Sir,  need  I  say  to 
gentlemen  around  me  here,  legislators  of  the  land,  that  in  any  government  which 
is  not  founded  in  absolute  force — in  any  government  whose  just  power  is  derived 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  more  especially  if  it  consist  of  a  confedera- 
tion of  States,  each  sovereign  within  its  sphere,  that  such  government  can  never 
be  formed,  without  mutual  and  great  concessions,  made  with  mutual  forbearance 
for  the  common  good  of  all  \<  and  under  how  much  greater  necessity  of  "conces- 
sion and  compromise  must  such  government  be,  when  made  up  of  States,  extend- 
ing for  thousands  of  miles  through  every  variety  of  climate,  and  with  all  the 
jarring  and  conflicting  interests,  that  are  incident  to  variety  of  occupation  and 
of  product.  These  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  or  more  properly  the  guar- 
antees that  resulted  from  them,  are  what  the  South  now  appeals  to  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  their  federal  rights — rights  secured  to  them  by  compact,  and  for 
which  ample  consideration  was  paid  on  their  part. 

Having  premised  thus  much,  I  now  approach  this  subject  with  the  gravity  that 
becomes  the  occasion.  It  has  been  weli  said  that  Republics  have  their  founda- 
tion in  public  virtue,  and  when  this  is  absent  they  soon  degenerate  and  fall  into 
decay.  Equally  true  it  is,  that  confederations  must  have  their  foundations  laid 
in  political  integrity  and  public  faith.  Constitutional  obligation  is  of  little  force, 
when  all  respect  is  lost  for  constitutional  faith. 

Mr.  President,  there  has  been  but  one  former  occasion  when  this  formidable 
question  was  before  the  country  in  its  present  aspect,  and  Senators  now  present 
who  were  then  in  the  national  councils,  will  bear  me  witness,  that  in  its  agita- 
tion then,  the  solid  foundations  of  the  Union  were  shaken.  Upon  the  refusal  to 
admit  the  State  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  without  a  clause  in  her  Constitution 
against  the  continuance  of  slavery  within  her  limits,  the  whole  South  stood  in 
hostile  array  against  the  North  and  East.  The  feeling  it  excited  in  the  Southern 
States  was  deep  and  intense.  There  was  no  dissension  or  difference  in  that 
quarter.  The  attempt  to  degrade  the  people  of  Missouri  below  the  level  of 
equality  with  the  other  States,  insulting  as  it  was,  was  yet  a  small  offence,  compar- 
ed with  the  magnitude  of  the  principle  it  involved — a  principle  which  assumed  a 
right  in  the  majority,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Constitution,  to  forbid  the  ex- 
tension of  the  slave  population  beyond  the  limits  to  which  it  was  then  confined. 
Sir,  after  a  lapse  of  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  the  same  question  is 
again  presented,  and  we  are  now  to  discuss,  calmly  and  temperately  I  hope, 
whether  a  numerical  majority  has  the  power,  under  constitutional  sanction,  to 
interfere  with  the  institutions  of  the  Southern  States,  by  forbidding  their  exten- 
sion into  territory,  the  common  property  of  the  Union,  and  thus  to  disparage  and 
impair  the  political  weight  which  has  been  assigned  by  the  Constitution  to  this 
portion  of  the  confederacy. 

Mr.  President,  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  in  1768,  the  institution  of 
slavery  formed  an  important  part  of  the  social  condition  of  all  the  Southern  and 
of  many  of  the  Northern  States.  Its  existence  and  influence  upon  the  future 
destiny  of  the  South,  where,  from  climate  and  other  causes,  it  was  most  likely 
to  become  permanent,  was  recognized  and  discussed  with  mature  deliberation. 
The  antagonist  interest  of  the  North  and  East,  were  brought  out  in  full  array  ; 
and  after  months  of  consideration  and  debate  by  the  wise  and  patriotic  men  then 
assembled  ;  after  great  and  mutual  concessions  on  all  sides  for  the  common  good,  a 
representative  weight,  in  the  federal  councils  was  assigned  to  the  slave  population, 
and  secured  to  the  States  interested  by  perpetual  guarantee  of  the   Constitution. 

Sir,  there  are  four  provisions  in  this  instrument,  recognising  slavery  and  pro- 
viding appropriate  guarantees  for  security  of  that  institution. 


First — In  the  2d  section  of  the  1st  article,  establishing  a  basis  of  representa- 
tion on  three-fifths  of  that  population. 

Second — In  the  9th  section  of  the  same  article,  prohibiting  the  passage  of 
any  law  by  Congress  prior  to  the  year  1808,  [a  period  of  twenty  years]  to  prevent 
the  further  importation  of  slaves  by  any  of  the  States. 

Third — In  the  5th  article,  providing  that  no  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
shall  affect  the  prohibitions  of  the  9th  section  of  the  1st  article,  prior  to  the 
year  1808.     And, 

Fourth — In  the  2d  clause,  2d  section  of  the  4th  article,  providing  for  the  sur- 
render of  fugitive  slaves,  on  the  claim  of  their  owners,  by  the  State  where  such 
fugitive  may  be  found. 

These,  sir,  are  all  full  and  distinct  recognitions  of  a  class  held  in  bondage,  and 
are  guarantees  provided  by  the  constitutional  compact — first,  allowing  their  con- 
tinued importation  for  twenty  years  ;  second,  providing  for  the  security  of  their 
tenure  as  property;  and,  third,  and  most  important,  admitting  them  in  the  scale 
of  representation  as  an  element  of  political  power;  and  for  each  one  of  these 
guarantees,  a  full  and  ample  equivalent  was  given  to  the  Northern  and  Eastern 
States,  in  immunities  and  advantages  secured  to  them.  I  will  instance  a  very 
striking  one,  which  has  been  rescued  from  oblivion  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and  left 
under  his  hand  as  a  memorial  for  history.  It  is  taken  from  his  unpublished 
manuscripts,  and  was  communicated  to  me  many  years  since  by  the  Hon.  Wm. 
C.  Rives,  of  Virginia,  my  predecessor  on  this  floor. 

Mr.  Jefferson  was  Minister  in  France  whist  the  Convention  sat,  which  form- 
ed the  Consti  ution  ;  and  Mr.  Mason,  at  whose  relation  he  recorded  this  scrap  of 
history,  was  a  member  of  that  Convention,  and  it  is  dated  at  the  family  seat  of 
the  relator  some  four  years  only  after  the  event  : 

"  Gunston  Hall,  September  30,  1792. 

"  Ex  relatione  G.  Mason.  The  Constitution  as  agreed  to  till  a  fortnight  before  the  Conven" 
tion  rose,  was  such  an  one  as  he  would  have  set  his  hand  and  heart  to.  1.  The  President  was  to 
be  elected  for  seven  years,  then  ineligible  for  seven  years  more.  2.  Rotation  in  the  Sen- 
ate. 3.  A  vote  of  two-thirds  in  the  legislation  on  particular  subjects,  and  expressly  on  that  of 
navigation.  The  three  New  England  States  were  constantly  with  us  in  all  questions,  (Rhode 
Island  not  there,  and  New  York  seldom.)  So  that  it  was  these  three  States,  with  the  five  South- 
ern ones,  against  Pennsylvania,  Jersey,  and  Delaware.  With  respect  to  the  importation  of 
slaves,  it  was  left  to  Congress.  This  disturbed  the  two  southernmost  States,  who  knew  that 
Congress  would  immediately  suppress  the  importation  of  slaves.  These  two  States,  therefore, 
struck  up  a  bargain  with  the  three  New  England  States,  if  they  would  join  to  admit  slaves  for 
some  years,  the  two  southernmost  States  would  join  in  changing  the  clause  which  required  two- 
thirds  of  the  legislature  in  any  vote.  It  was  done.  These  articles  were  changed  accordingly, 
and  from  that  moment  the  two  southern  States,  and  the  three  northern  ones  joined  Pennsylvania, 
Jersey,  and  Delaware,  and  made  the  majority  8  to  3  against  us,  instead  of  8  to  3  for  us,  as  it  had 
been  through  the  whole  Convention.  Under  this  coalition  the  great  principles  of  the  Constitution 
were  changed  in  the  last  days  of  the  Convention." 

Now,  sir,  by  reference  to  the  journal  of  that  Convention  it  will  be  found  that 
the  votes  of  the  States  implicated  were  changed  as  are  recorded  in  that  memo- 
rial. And  what  is  proved  by  it  ?  Why,  first,  that  the  right  to  import  slaves  for 
twenty  years  was  bartered  away  by  three  of  the  New  England  States;  and, 
second,  that  in  consideration  of  this  immunity,  the  whole  right  of  legislation  on 
all  matters  affecting  commerce  and  navigation,  which  up  to  that  time  had  been 
restricted  to  a  majority  of  two-thirds,  was  committed  to  a  bare  numerical  majori- 
ty ;  and  a  very  bad  bargain  it  was  for  the  South.  But,  ex  hac,disce  omnes.  Let 
this  one  example  illustrate  the  whole.  Sir,  the  South  has  been  faithful  and  true 
to  all  their  constitutional  engagements.  If  there  be  an  instance  where,  however 
onerous,  the  South  has  failed  both  in  spirit  and  letter  to  fulfil  those  engagements 
on  her  part,  I  pray  gentlemen  to  make  it  known. 

Let  us  see  ill  reference  to  these  guarantees  respecting  the  institution  of  slave- 
ry, how  they  have  been  fulfilled  by  the  Slates  now  called  "Free  States."  I  in- 
stance the  obligation  on  the  States  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves.  How 
has  that  been  fulfilled  ?     The  clause  imposing  it  is  part  of  the  same  section,  and 


in  pari-maferia,  with  that  requiring  the  surrender  of  those  who  shall  "  flee  from 
justice."  Sound  and  good  faith  to  the  compact,  requires  that  each  class  of  fugi- 
tives should  be  "  delivered  up,"  as  an  act  of  State  authority,  upon  the  demand 
of  the  "  Executive"  in  the  one  case,  and  on  the  "claim  of  the  party"  entitled,  in 
the  other.  I  ask  of  Senators  representing  the  so-styled  "  free  States,"  how  are 
these  obligations  discharged?  Is  it  not  due  to  the  faith  of  the  Constitution,  that 
each  should  be  regarded  as  equally  obligatory?  And  yet,  what  is  the  fact?  Why, 
laws  are  enacted  in  all  the  States,  requiring  of  the  Executive  authority  to  sur- 
render fugitives  from  justice  upon  demand  of  the  State  whence  they  flee,  and 
providing  for  their  arrest  and  detention  until  such  demand  is  made.  But  in  the 
case  of  fugitive  slaves,  in  none  of  these  States  is  the  like  constitutional  duty  re- 
garded. In  some,  laws  are  even  enacted  denying  the  use  ot  their  jails  for  the 
custody  of  such  fugitives,  and  denouncing  penaltiee  on  their  officers  if  they  lend 
any  aid  in  arresting  them.  Whilst  in  all,  the  citizens  of  the  South  who  go  there 
in  pursuit,  are  insulted  and  defied,  and  even  hunted  down  and  killed.  I  have 
no  disposition  to  speak  in  terms  of  crimination,  or  to  excite  angry  or  bitter  feel- 
ing. But  our  property  is  insecure.  The  guarantees  under  which  we  hold  it  are 
habitually  and  wantonly  disregarded,  and  I  should  be  wanting  in  duty  to  those 
whose  honor  and  interests  are  in  part  committed  to  my  care,  did  I  not  avail  my- 
self of  the  occasion  to  make  it  known.  Sir,  all  that  the  Southern  States  ask  is 
that  the  Constitution  shall  be  observed  in  good  faith.  They  have  a  right  to  de- 
mand, and  they  do  demand,  that  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  ob- 
served and  held  sacred.  I  have  heard  Senators  on  this  floor,  the  Senator  from 
New  York,  (Mr.  Dix, )  and  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  (Mr.  Phelps,)  at  this 
session,  and  within  a  week,  declare  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  Northern  and 
Eastern  States,  to  do  what  ?  To  prevent  the  extension  of  what  they  call  the 
"  slave  power."  I  put  it  to  those  Senators,  what  do  they  mean  by  the  "  slave 
power  ?" 

Mr.  Dix. — I  did  not  make  such  a  declaration. 

Mr.  Mason. — I  so  understood  the  Senator  in  his  remarks,  although  I  do  not 
find  the  expression  in  his  printed  speech.  It  was  used  then  by  the  Senator  from 
Vermont.  What  is  the  "slave  power?"  In  the  discussion  of  a  question  like 
this,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  Senators  should  give  us  terms  that  are  in- 
telligible. What,  then,  is  the  slave  power  to  which  the  Senator  says  an  end 
must  be  put?  Why,  sir,  it  is  the  representative  weight,  which  is  assigned  by 
the  Constitution  to  this  species  of  population,  or  property.  If  there  be  any 
power  lodged  by  the  Constitution,  in  which  it  is  supposed  the  Northern  States 
do  not  share  in  common  with  their  brethren  in  other  States,  it  is  referrible  to 
the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  arranges  and  distributes  the  representation. 
And  it  is  this  power,  for  which  ah  ample  equivalent  has  been  given,  wTbich  we 
are  told  now  by  Senators  is  not  further  to  be  extended.  Mr.  President,  this 
representative  weight,  assigned  to  the  States  of  this  Union  by  the  Constitution, 
must  be  preserved.  If  it  is  not  preserved,  I  need  not  tell  gentlemen  what  the 
consequences  will  be.  It  is  not  only  necessary  for  the  security  of  their  proper- 
ty, but  it  is  indispensable  to  their  political  welfare.  The  question  of  abolition 
heretofore  has  been  a  mere  brulum  fulmen,  but  it  comes  now  in  a  shape  that  is 
no  longer  to  be  despised.  The  institution  was  first  assailed  when  a  majority  in 
the  Federal  Congress  attempted  in  1820  to  prevent  the  State  of  Missouri  from 
coming  into  this  Union,  unless  upon  terms  derogatory  to  her  as  a  sovereign  State, 
and  directly  in  violation  of  the  Constitution.  Sir,  I 'know  not  how  it  was  felt  at 
•the  North — I  know  not  how  far  Northern  statesmen  cr  Northern  politicians  may 
have  believed,  that  their  ascendancy  was  involved  in  the  curtailment  of  the  slave 
representation;  but  I  know  this,  that  in  the  South  it  required  but  the  application 
ofthe  torch,  to  kindle  the  whole  country.  They  looked  upon  it  as  not  only  vital 
to  their  safety,  but  they  looked  upon  the  attempt  to  assail  it,  as  an  insult,  an  in- 
dignity offered  to  them  as  sovereign  member*  of  this  confederacy.  Sir,  Mr. 
Jefferson  lived  in  those  days.     No  man,  I  suppose,  will  question  his  loyalty  to 


'the  Constitution,  and  none  his  sagacity  as.  a  statesman.  A  letter  was  read  on 
this  floor  the  other  day  by  the  honorable  Senalor  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr. 
Calhoun,)  in  which  Mr.  Jetferson  spoke  liis  alarm  at  the  portentous  consequen- 
ces threatened  by  this  movement  against  the  South.  His  mind  was  tilled  with 
the  portents  of  the  occasion,  and  his  views  freely  expressed  in  letters  to  his 
friends,  show  that  in  this  parricidal  attack,  he  saw  the  days  of  the  Constitution- 
numbered. 

Mr.  Jefferson's    opinions  on   the  occasion  cited   are  entitled  to  great  weight. 
A  matured  statesman  and  philosopher,  profoundly  versed  as  weli  in  the  science 
of  government,  as  in  the  shoals  and  depths  of  patty,  he  saw  through  the  vista  of 
years,  this  disturbing  influence — ever  on  the   alert  when  once  aroused,  until  its 
wicked  work  was  ended,  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Constitution  of  his  country. 

In  a  letter,  dated  on  the  13th  April,  1820,  to  Mr.  *****,  a  gentleman  now 
living,  he  says : 

**  The  old  schism  of  Federal  and  Republican  threatened  nothing,  because  it  existed  in  every 
State,  and  united  them  together  by  the  fraternism  of  party  ;  but  the  coincidence  of  <i  marked 
principle,  moral  and  political,  with  a  geographical  line,  once  conceived,  I  feared,  would  never 
more  be  obliterated  from  the  mind  ;  that  it  would  be  recurring  on  every  occasion,  and  renewing- 
irritations  until  it  would  kindle  such  mutual  and  mortal  hatred,  as  to  render  separation  prefer- 
able to  eternal  discord.  "  I  have  been  amongst  the  most  sanguine  in  believing  that  our  Union 
would  be  of  long  duration.  I  now  doubt  it  much  ;  and  see  the  event  at  no  great  distance,  and 
the  direct  consequence  of  this  question." 

On  the  20th  December,  1820,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  ********?  a  gentleman  also 
now  living,  thus  : 

■"  Nothing  has  ever  presented  so  threatening  an  aspect  as  what  is  called  the  ?»Iissouri  question. 
The  Federalists,  completely  put  down,  and  despairing  of  ever  rising  again  under  the  old  divisions 
of  Whig  and  Tory,  devised  a  new  one,  of  slaveholding  and  non-slav<.  holding  States,  which, 
while  it  had  a  semblance  of  being  moral,  was  at  the  same  time  geographical,  and  calculated  to 
give  them  ascendancy  by  debauching  their  old  opponents  tc  a  coalition  with  them.  Moral,  the 
question  certainly  is  not,  because  the  removal  of  slaves  f.orn  one  State  to  another,  no  more  than 
their  removal  from  one  country  to  another,  would  never  mrke  a  slave  of  one  human  being  who 
would  net  be  so  without  it.  Indeed,  if  there  be  any  morality  in  the  question,  it  is  on  the  other 
side,  because,  by  spreading  them  over  a  larger  surface,  th°ir  happiness  would  be  increased,  and 
the  burden  of  their  future  liberation  lightened,  by  bringing  a  greater  number  of  shoulders  under 
it.  However,  it  seemed  to  throw  dust  into  the  eyes  of  the  people,  and  to  fanaticise  them,  while  to 
the  knowing  ones  itgave  a  geograph-cal  and  preponderating  line  of  the  Potomac  and  Ohio, 
throwing  fourteen  States  to  the  North  and  East  and  ten  to  the  South  and  West.  With  theue, 
therefore,  it  is  merely  a  question  of  power.  But  with  this  geographical  minority  it  is  a  question 
of  existence  ;  for  if  Congress  once  goes  out  of  the  Constitution  to  arrogate  the  right  of  regula- 
ting the  condition  of  the  inhabitants  of  '.he  States,  its  majority  may,  and  probably  will  declare, 
that  the  condition  of  all  within  the  United  States  shall  be  that  of  freedom  ;  in  which  case  all  the 
whites  south  of  the  Poteuiac  and  the  Ohio  must  evacuate  their  States,  and  most  fortunate  those 
who  can  do  it  first." 

And  in  this  letter,  after  speculating  on  the  probable  consequence  of  the  threat- 
ened disunion,  he  adds  : 

"  Should  the  scission  take  place,  one  of  its  moat  deplorable  consequences  would  be  its  dis- 
couragement of  the  efforts  of  European  nations,  in  the  regeneration  of  their  oppressive  and  can- 
nibal Governments." 

In  a  letter,  of  the  same  date,  (20th  December,)  to  the  Marquis  de  Lafayetie, 
he  prophetically  shadows  forth,  what  we  now  see  realized,  with  the  same  preci- 
sion as  if  he  were  the  historian  of  to-day      1  give  an  extract : 

"  With  us  things  are  going  well.  The  boisterous  sea  of  liberty,  indeed,  is  never  without  a 
wave  ;  and  that  from  Missouri  is  now  rolling  towards  us.  But  we  shall  ride  over  it  as  we  ha-e 
done  over  all  others.  It  is  not  a  moral  question,  but  one  merely  of  power.  Its  object  is  to  raib.i 
a  geographical  principle  for  the  choice  of  a  President,  and  the  noise  will  be  kept  up  till  that  i* 
effected.  All  know  that  permitting  the  slaves  of  the  Sou'b  to  spread  into  the  Wert,  will  not  add 
one  being  to  that  unfortunate  condition  ;  that  it  will  increase  the  happinc  ?s  of  those  existmg,  and 
by  spreading  them  over  a  large  surface  will  dilate  the  evil  everywhere,  and  fac.iitate  the  means 
of  getting  finally  rid  of  it." 

So  thought  and  so  wrote  JefTerson,  on  the  question  which  divided  and  threat- 
ened us  then,  as  it  divides  and  threatens  us  now.  But,  sir,  the  dirfiouity  was 
then  overcome.     It  was  overcome,  by  concession  made  by  these  very  Southern. 


8 

States — a  great  concession — a  concession  not  only  of  their  constitutional  right, 
but  of  an  expressed  constitutional  guarantee.     And  it  was  made  for  the  sake  of 
peace.     How  is  it  met  now  ?  I  understood  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  who  had  the 
floor  on  this  question  a  few  days  since,  to  say  what  ?     Why,  that  the  compromise 
in  the  case  of  Missouri,  was  really  a  boon  offered  by  the  North  to  the  South. 

[Mr.  Phelis  here  interposed,  and  was  understood  to  disclaim  the   remark 
applied  to  him,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  understood  by  Mr.  Mason.] 

Mr.  Mason. — Well,  sir,  the  concession  was  made  in  the  hope  that,  in  so  do- 
ing, ihe  question  was  settled  forever.  By  mutual  agreement  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  it  was  agreed  to  limit  the  right  to  introduce  slaves  in  the  country  ac- 
quired from  France,  to  a  line  extended  west  from  the  southern  boundary  of  the 
State  of  Missouri,  being  the  parallel  of  36°  30'.  Sir,  this  was  conceded  for 
the  sake  of  preserving  this  Union.  It  was  a  consideration  as  high  even  as  that; 
and  we  fondly  hoped  that  at  no  future  day  would  it  be  in  the  power  of 
agitators  again  to  jeopard  the  Union,  with  all  the  consequences  that  must 
ensue,  in  order  to  drive  a  political  bargain.  But  this  has  been  done.  The 
very  first  occasion,  when  new  territory  is  acquired  as  the  property  of  the  con- 
federacy, this  disturbing  question  is  brought  up  ;  and  brought  up  how  ?  Brought 
up  by  connecting  it  with  ■territory  lying  so  far  north,  that  all  must  agree,  it  never 
can  become  the  property  of  slaveholders.  It  is  brought  up,  sir,  as  a  precedent, 
because  Senators  well  know  what  will  follow.  There  are  two  other  territories 
that  have  recently  been  obtained,  California,  and  New  Mexico,  and  here  the 
precedent  is  to  apply.  Sir,  we  must  meet  the  question  in  limine,  and  if  it  be 
the  judgment  of  the  Senate,  of  a  majority  of  the  States  here  represented,  that 
the  settlement  of  this  question  in  1820  is  to  be  disregarded,  and  the  question  is 
to  be  carried  as  a  matter  of  absolute  power,  let  them  take  the  consequence 
when  it  comes,  as  come  it  will. 

Mr.  President,  when  a  matter  of  political  rule — not  of  political  right,  but  of 
political  rule — is  once  determined  on,  there  is  no  great  difficulty  in  finding  argu- 
ments to  sustain  it.  The  Senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Dix,)  who  has  opened 
the  debate  upon  this  question,  has  invoked  the  ordinance  of '87  for  the  government 
of  the  Northwestern  Territory,  and  has  relied  upon  it,  as  what?  As  a  prece- 
dent? I  should  presume  not — hardly  as  persuasive  authority — but  as  an  exam- 
ple, that  early  as  the  year  1787,  before  the  foundation  of  this  Government  was 
laid,  the  American  people,  by  a  compact,  excluded  slavery  from  a  large  territory 
that  belonged  to  the  United  States.  Sir,  the  ordinance  shows  upon  its  face,  that 
it  was  a  matter  of  absolute  compact  between  the  States  then  confederated,  and 
the  State  of  Virginia,  which  made  the  cession.  It  was  a  compact  in  terms  : 
and  whether  the  Congress  of  the  confederacy  had  or  had  not  the  power  to  make 
it,  does  not  shed  ihe  least  light  upon  the  inquiry,  whether  the  Congress,  under  the 
present  confederation,  can  make  a  similar  compact  ;  and  for  the  simple  reason 
that  the  ordinance  of  '67  was  made  before  the  Constitution  was  formed.  The 
history  of  that  ordinance  is  very  little  known.  The  proceedings  of  the  old  Con- 
tinental Congress  were  in  secret,  and  no  memorial  was  kept  of  their  debates. 
But  this  territory  was  ceded  by  Virginia  to  the  United  States  in  March,  1784, 
and  the  ordinance  for  its  government  was  not  adopted  until  July,  1787  ;  and 
during  the  whole  of  the  intervening  time,  the  journals  of  Congress  show,  that 
the  organization  of  a  government  for  the  Territory  was  a  subject  of  discussion, 
engendering  contention,  and  great  differences  of  opinion. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  South  Carolina  has  suggested,  with  great  force — 
at  least  with  a  degree  of  probability  in  the  absence  of  direct  information — that 
this  very  clause,  interdicting  involuntary  servitude  in  the  Territory,  was  in  itself 
the  result  of  compromise,  and  that  it  was  yielded  by  Virginia,  upon  condition  that 
the  guarantee  which  accompanies  it,  should  be  given  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves.     There  U  another  suggestion  thnt  \  have  derived  from  a  different  source. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Florida.  (Mr.    Westcott,)    whose  habits  of  re- 
search we  all  know,  and  of  which  he  has  given  me   to  some  extent  the  benefit, 


has  exhibited  a  letter  from  Mr.  Madison,  throwing  out  this  suggestion.  In  those 
days  all  the  States,  under  the  articles  of  confederation,  were  importers  of  slaves. 
The  New  England  States  almost  whitened  the  ocean  with  the  canvass  of  their 
ships,  bringing  slaves  from  Africa  to  the  Coast  of  America  ;  and  although  there 
was  a  strong  disposition  in  the  federal  legislation  to  put  a  stop  to  it,  they  had 
not  the  power  to  do  so.  And  the  probability  is,  says  Mr.  Madison,  that  the 
clause  in  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which  forbids  "  involuntary  servitude"  in  the 
Northwest  Territory,  was  introduced  in  order  to  strike  at  the  foreign  slave  trade. 
Congress  having  no  power  to  forbid  the  importation,  taking  this  mode  to  res- 
train it,  by  limiting  the  territory  into  which  slaves  should  be  carried.  But,  be 
this  as  it  may,  the  occasion  which  called  it  forth  is  pregnant  with  instructive  his- 
tory to  the  statesmen  and  people  of  our  country,  and  so  apposite,  that  I  shall  be 
pardoned  for  the  digression  in  introducing  it  here. 

The  claim  by  many  of  the  States  to  a  large  and  unoccupied  tenitory  in  the 
West,  was  the  subject  of  much  jealousy  and  dissension  with  those  States  whose 
boundaries  were  more  circumscribed. 

Virginia,  whose  chartered  limits  once  extended  to  the  Pacific,  (then  called 
the  South  sea,)  had  yet  an  immense  territory  unoccupied,  lying  to  the  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  river.  New  York  claimed  a  part  of  the  same  territory  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  title  of  Virginia.  While  the  States  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecti. 
cut,  in  the  East,  and  Georgia  and  the  two  Carolinas,  in  the  South,  each  held 
large  bodies  of  waste  and  unappropriated  land. 

It  was  said  by  the  other  States  that  it  was  unjust  and  inequitable  that  these 
vast  territories,  the  enjoyment  of  which  had  been  secured  to  iheir  respective 
claimants  by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  all,  freely  lavished  in  the  Revolutionary 
struggle,  should  be  thus  separately  held.  That  Delaware,  Ma.yland,  and  New 
Jersey  had  equally  contributed  to  rescue  them  from  the  dominion  of  the  British 
crown,  and  it  was  oppressive  and  unjust  to  exclude  them  from  the  fruits  of  the 
conquest.  This  feeling,  which  grew  as  the  Revolution  progressed,  manifested  it- 
self in  a  decided  manner  when  the  "  Articles  of  Confederation  and  Perpetual 
Union,"  agreed  to  by  Congress  in  1777,  were  recommended  to  the  several  States 
for  their  ratification.  The  State  of  Maryland  refused  to  ratify,  and  placed  her 
refusal  upon  the  express  ground  that  she  was  excluded  from  participation  in  these 
unoccupied  lands.  I  read  an  extract  from  the  "  instructions  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Maryland,  to  her  delegates  in  Congress,"  presented  by  them  on  the 
21st  May,  1779  : 

"  We  are  convinced  policy  and  justice  require  that  a  country  unsettled  at  the  commencement 
of  this  war,  claimed  by  the  British  crown  and  ceded  to  it  by  the  treaty  of  Paris,  if  wrested  from 
the  common  enemy  by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  the  thirteen  States,  should  be  co>  s'dered  as  a  com- 
mon property,  subject  to  be  parcelled  out  by  Congress,  into  five  convenient  and  independent  Gov- 
ernments, in  such  manner  and  at  such  times  as  the  wisdom  of  that  assemby  shall  hereafter  direct. 

"  We  have  coolly  and  dispassionately  considered  the  subject,  we  have  weighed  probable  incon- 
veniences and  hardship  against  the  sacrifice  of  just  and  essential  rights,  and  do  instruct  you  not 
to  agree  to  the  confederation  unless  an  article  or  articles  be  added  thereto  in  conformity  with  our 
declaration." 

New  Jersey  did  ratify,  but  under  protest,  "in  the  firm  reliance  that  the  can- 
dor and  justice  of  the  several  States  will,  in  due  time,  remove,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, the  inequality  which  now  subsists."  The  State  of  Delaware  also  came 
into  that  confederacy,  but  under  like  protest,  from  which  1  shall  also  ask  leave 
to  read  an  extract,  as  it  exhibits  the  feeling  which  then  actuated  the  States  ;  all 
which*  they  were  willing  to  lay  down  for  the  common  good  : 

Extract  from  the  resolutions  of  the  State  of  Delaware,  presented  by  her  delegates  in  Congress, 

February  23d,  1771). 
"  Resolved,  That  this  State  consider  themselves  justly  entitled  to  a  right,  in  common  with  the 
members  of  the  Union,  to  that  extensive  tract  of  country  which  lies  westward  of  the  frontier  of 
the  United  States,  the  property  of  which  was  not  vested  in  or  granted  to  individuals  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  present  war:  that  the  same  hath  been  or  may  be  gained  from  the  King  of 
Great  Britain  or  the  native  Indians  by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  al!,  and  ought  therefore  to  be 
a  common  estate,  to  be  granted  out  on  terms  beneficial  to  the  United  States." 


10 

Sir,  it  is  useful  to  go  back,  and  contrast  the  spirit  with  which  these  States 
came  originally  together,  in  the  days  of  the  Revolution,  with  that  which  ani- 
mates some  of  them  now.  Such  was  the  state  of  things  when  the  territory 
was  ceded,  which  is  now  brought  up  in  judgment  against  Virginia,  and  other 
Southern  States.  And  what  was  done  ?  Why  the  State  of  New  York  set  the 
example,  and  made  the  sacrifice  required  on  the  altar  of  the  country,  for  the 
common  good.     Let  me  exhibit  an  extract  from  an  act  passed  by  New  York  : 

"  Whereas  nothing  under  Divine  Providence  can  more  effectually  contribute  to  the  traquility 
and  safety  of  the  United  States  of  America,  than  a  federal  alliance  on  such  principles  as  will 
give  satisfaction  to  its  respective  members :  and  whereas  the  articles  of  confederation  and  per- 
petual union  recommended  by  the  honorable  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America,  have 
not  proven  acceptable  to  all  the  States,  it  having  been  conceived  thai  a  portion  of  the  waste  and 
uncultivated  territory  within  the  limits  or  claims  of  certain  States,  ought  to  be  appropriated  as  a 
common  fund  for  the  expenses  of  the  war:  and  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  being  on 
all  occasions  disposed  to  manifest  their  regard  for  their  sister  States,  and  their  earnest  desire 
to  promote  the  general  interest  and  security,  and  more  especially  to  accelerate  the  federal  al- 
liance, by  removing,  as  far  as  depends  upon  them,  the  before-mentioned  impediment  to  its  final 
accomplishment ;  Be  it  therefore  enacted/' 

And  then  followed  a  resolution  of  the  old  Congress  accepting  this  territorial 
grant  from  the  State  of  New  York,  and  inviting  the  other  States  to  do  the  like. 
Sir,  the  next  State  in  order  was  Virginia.  There  had  been  a  strong  remon- 
strance presented  by  Virginia  to  this  claim  of  New  York  to  the  lands  which 
she  considered  embraced  within  her  territory  of  the  north-west,  the  whole  of 
which  was  forgotten  and  laid  aside,  and  that  great  State,  in  the  year  1783,  gave 
authority  to  her  representatives  in  Congress,  to  convey  to  the  United  States,  in 
absolute  perpetuity,  a  territory  that  is  covered  by  ten  parallels  of  latitude,  and 
thirteen  degrees  of  longitude,  out  of  which  have  been  carved  five  of  the  States 
which  are  now  in  the  Union,  and  enjoying  its  protection.  And  she  did  it  for 
what  ?  Why,  to  meet  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation  the  concessions  of  other  States, 
to  do  every  thing  for  the  common  good,  and  to  accomplish  which,  she  has  truly, 
given  up  her  birthright.  Contrast  the  language  held  by  New  York  in  the  act 
of  1780,  with  the  language  held  by  her  Senator  on  this  floor  now.  Sir,  who 
believes,  when  it  required  a  spirit  of  such  mutual  forbearance  and  concession, 
a  spirit  that  was  disposed  to  give  up  every  thing  for  the  common  good,  in  order 
to  prevail  upon  the  States  to  bind  themselves  in  articles  of  confederation,  that  you 
can  keep  those  States  under  any  federative  government  whatever,  when  that 
spirit  is  forgotten  and  disregarded  ?  Who  is  there  on  this  floor  who  believes, 
that  Virginia,  the  largest,  most  populous,  and  most  wealthy,  of  the  Southern 
States,  ever  would  have  been  a  party  to  the  Constitution,  if  there  had  been  a 
prevision  engrafted  in  it,  forbidding  an  extension  of  any  part  of  her  population 
to  any  territory,  that  might  hereafter  become  the  property  of  the  United  States  ? 
No  one.  And  if  she  would  not  then,  and  believes  now,  that  such  extension  is 
her  constitutional  right,  who  believes  that  she,  or  any  of  her  Southern  sister 
States,  can  remain  in  the  confederacy,  when  the  barriers  that  had  been  erected 
for  their  protection,  have  been  ruthlessly  broken  down,  and  disregarded  ? 

Every  movement  that  is  made  affecting  the  rights  and  power  of  the  Southern 
States  in  reference  to  this  population,  is  looked  upon  there,  as  in  derogation  of 
their  exclusive  authority.  They  are  sensitive  on  this  subject.  It  forms  a  part 
of  their  most  valuable  property.  It  is  a  great  element  of  their  political  power, 
and  its  proper  management  is  essential  to  their  safety.  Yet  honorable  Senators 
here,  as  I  understand  them,  looking  upon  the  powers  of  this  Government  at  un- 
limited, perfectly  without  control,  approach  this  subject  as  they  would  approach 
an  ordinary  subject  of  legislation,  and  assert  a  right  to  control  it,  whether  with 
or  without  the  assent  of  the  States,  where  alone  the  institution  is  found.  Is  not 
all  power,  that  is  not  granted  to  the  General  Government  reserved  to  the  States? 
And  do  you  rind  anything  in  the  Constitution  which  authorizes  any  interference 
on  the  part  of  the  General  Government  with  the  domestic  institutions,  and  the 
regulation  of  the  internal  affairs  of  the  States  ?     Sir,  in  this  connexion  I  was 


11 

very  much  struck  with  one  view  presented  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont.  The 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  attempted  to  show,  and  I  think  successfully,  that 
let  this  power  of  legislation  over  the  Territories  be  derived  whence  it  might,  it 
was  a  trust,  to  be  administered  by  this  Government  for  the  benefit  otthe  States, 
by  whom  the  trust  was  created.  I  understood  the  Senator  from  Vermont  to  say 
it  was  not  a  trust,  and  that  it  was  not,  because  there  was  devolved  upon  Con- 
gress "legislative  discretion." 

Mr.  Phelps. — The  Senator  misapprehends  me.  My  remark  was  that  there 
was  no  analogy  to  be  drawn  between  a  legislative  trust,  and  a  legal  trust ;  and 
that  the  important  difference  between  the  two  was,  the  ingredient  of  legislative 
discretion. 

Mr.  Mason. — A  trust  is  a  trust,  whether  it  be  created  under  the  sanction 
of  law,  or  result  from  a  delegated  authority  to  legislate.  And  although  in  its 
latter  form,  there  may  be  what  the  Senator  calls  "legislative  discretion,"  yet 
such  discretion  does  not  extinguish  the  trust.  The  Senator  will  not  contend 
that  it  does  ;  neither  will  a  legislative  discretion  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  trus- 
tee. They  remain  limited  by  the  object  of  the  trust,  though  the  choice  of  means 
to  execute,  it  may  be  extended.  Be  it  a  public  or  a  private  trust,  its  obligations 
on  the  trustee  are  the  same,  that  he  shall  not  transcend  his  delegated  authority. 
And  if  you  want  to  determine  whether  the  trust  has  been  well  or  ill  performed, 
you  must  look  at  the  charter  creating  it, 

Mr.  President,  I  will  not  say  there  is  a  party,  but  there  are  statesmen  in  this 
country  who  look  upon  this  Government  as  a  property  to  be  enjoyed  and  parcel- 
led out,  rather  than  as  a  trust  to  be  administered  for  the  common  good  ;  and 
here  is  one  great  instance  in  which  the  principle  is  to  be  affirmed  or  denied. 
A  territory  is  common  property,  the  property  of  all ;  and  I  submit  to  any  Sena- 
tor who  hears  me,  as  I  will  also  to  the  judgment  of  posterity — whether  the  trust 
is  properly  fulfilled,  when  you  exclude  from  such  common  property,  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  joint  owners.  The  Senator  from  Vermont,  however,  has  said,  that 
when  you  forbid  slavery  within  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States,  you  do 
not  destroy  the  equality  between  the  citizens  of  the  States,  because  all  citizens 
are  free  to  go  there.  Sir,  if  this  is  not  keeping  the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear 
and  breaking  it  to  the  hope,  I  know  not  where  an  instance  may  be  found.  What 
would  you  have  ?  Suppose  a  portion  of  that  tenitory  be  valuable  to  the  South, 
you  extend  fjll  permission  to  the  planters  of  the  South  to  go  there,  provided, 
they  will  abandon  the  only  property,  that  would  make  it  valuable  to  them  after 
they  get  there.  That  is  the  equality,  which  the  Senator  from  Vermont  would 
mete  out  to  us.  No,  sir.  I  insist  that  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  to 
which  I  have  referred,  as  recognizing  this  portion  of  our  population,  and  assign- 
ing its  stipulated  representative  weight,  were  never  designed  to  exclude  the 
States  interested,  from  participating  equally  with  the  rest,  in  all  future  acquisi- 
tions of  territory. 

I  put  it  to  honorable  Senators  who  hear  me,  what  would  be  the  condition  of 
the  South,  if  this  pretension  were  submitted  to  ?  There  are  now  three  millions 
of  slaves,  I  presume,  in  the  Southern  States,  and  such  is  their  condition  of  ease 
and  comfort,  and  abundance,  that  they  increase  faster  thr.n  the  white  population  ; 
and  you  propose  to  circumscribe  them,  and  to  declare  that  on  no  occasion  shall 
they  ever  be  extended  into  the  territories  of  the  Un;ted  States.  What  then  will 
be  the  condition  of  the  South;  with  their  lands  worn  out,  and  walls  of  circum- 
vallation  thrown  around  them,  they  will  have  no  choice,  but  to  abandon  their 
property  and  their  homes.  And  the  Senator  from  Vermont  says  this  is  all  right, 
there  is  no  objection  to  "  penning  them  up,"  and  if  ever  they  emerge  beyond 
those  prescribed  limits,  they  must  come  out  as  freemen  ;  I  ask  Senators  where 
are  they  to  go?  What  territory  is  there  within  the  free  States  that  will  receive 
a  class  of  free  blacks?  Not  one.  And  yet  the  honorable  Senator,  with  a  calmness 
that  becomes  a  philosopher,  or  a  gentleman  who  is  not  implicated  at  all  in  this 
institution,  tells  us,  it  is  all  very  well,  there  is  no  objection  to  "penning  them 


12 

up."  We  had  an  instance  in  Virginia  not  long  ago  of  the  fate  that  awaits 
emancipated  negroes  in  the  free  States.  A  gentleman,  whose  sagacity  and  in- 
tellect, illustrated  and  adorned  the  counsels  of  his  country  while  he  lived,  and 
whose  memory  will  be  honored  and  venerated,  when  others  shall  be  forgotten, 
manumitted  his  slaves,  by  his  last  will,  to  the  number  of  some  five  hundred,  and 
made  ample  provision  for  their  location,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  slave  Slates. 
His  executor — a  man  who  knew  what  a  trust  was — went  to  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  by  invitation  there,  purchased  a  tract  of  country  as  a  residence  for  the  manu- 
mitted slaves,  and  when  he  took  them  there,  they  were  driven  off  by  force,  by 
the  people  of  the  country  where  he  had  purchased.  Sir,  this  matter  of  abolition 
is  destitute  of  every  savor  of  humanity,  if  the  slave  population  are  to  be  manu- 
mitted, under  the  promise  of  a  refuge  in  the  free  States  of  the  Union.  The  Sen- 
ator from  New  Yotfk  has  told  us  v^ry  truly,  that  the  black  population  in  a  state 
of  freedom,  dwindles  and  diminishes,  and  would  soon  become  extinct.  It  is  in- 
cident to  their  race.  They  do  not  multiply,  in  a  state  of  freedom,  on  our  conti- 
nent. No,  sir,  contemplate  the  spectacle  we  nave  in  these  Northern  Slates 
now,  see  the  rivalry,  jealousy,  and  hatred  that  is  engendered  there  between  the 
white  population  and  the  free  blacks  ;  and  see  that  race,  the  subject  of  so  much 
commiseration  here,  because  they  are  in  slavery,  dying  and  rotting  in  naked- 
ness and  filth,  in  the  cellars  and  dens  of  your  Northern  cities.  Sir,  there  was 
another  idea  thrown  out  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont.  I  understood  him  to 
assert  distinctly,  and  thence  draw  an  important  legal  deduction,  that  a  slave  was 
not  property,  but  that  the  tenure  was,  what?  A  mere  "incident  to  a  domestic 
relation. "  Well,  sir,  that  was  certainly  a  felicitous  turn  of  expression.  But 
the  objection  to  it  is,  that  it  is  utterly  void  of  meaning — the  civilians  tell  us, 
that  slavery  had  i^s  origin  in  the  rights  of  conquest — the  captor  had  the  right 
to  put  his  prisoner  to  death,  and  when  he  spared  his  life,  it  was  done  on  the  im- 
plied contract,  that  the  captive  should  become  his  bondsman. 

This  is  yet  the  law  of  the  savage  race  in  Africa  ;  and  the  first  negro  slave  that 
was  landed  on  our  shores,  brought  this  condition  with  him  from  the  land  (  f  his  birth. 

Slavery,  then,  is  an  incident  to  a  hostile  relation,  which  is  the  very  opposite 
to  a  domestic  relation. 

But,  be  this  as  it  may,  the  condition  of  slavery  is  fixed  in  the  country,  whence 
the  subject  comes.  It  required  no  special  law  to  create  it  here,  as  it  seems  to 
have  been  supposed  by  an  honorable  Senator  from  Connecticut,  (Mr.  Niles.) 
The  first  slaves  imported  into  Virginia,  were  landed  from  a  Dutch  ship,  in  1620, 
and  were  purchased  by  the  planters.  The  common  law  was  then  the  law  of 
the  colony.  By  that  law,  their  condition  as  property  was  recognized,  and  under 
its  pervading  principle,  that  the  issue  follows  the  condition  of  the  mother,  (par- 
tus  sequitur  ventrem,)  their  descendants,  as  well  as  the  descendants  of  every 
subsequent  importation,  have  remained  in  bondage.  There  never  was  a  statute 
in  Virginia  creating  slavery,  nor  was  there  any  need  of  one  to  establish  that  insti- 
tution. The  only  statute  of  that  character,  was  one  passed  at  an  early  day,  for- 
bidding the  planters  from  making  slaves  of  the  Indian  children,  who  were  sent 
in  as  hostages. 

Laws  have  been  passed  from  time  to  time  regulating  the  condition  of  slavery, 
as  a  recognized  condition  of  part  of  the  population  ;  but  for  no  other  end.  And 
by  the  policy  of  such  legislation,  slaves  have  been  at  one  time  treated  as  real 
estate,  and  at  another  as  personal. 

The  condition  of  slavery,  then,  is  nothing  more  than  the  right  of  the  owner  to 
the  service  of  the  bondsman  during  life  of  the  latter,  and  to  which  the  jus  dis- 
pownrii  is  attached,  as  to  any  other  species  cf  property — the  same  right  which 
the  master  at  common  law  has  to  the  service  of  the  servant,  or  the  master  to 
the  apprentice  ;  the  only  difference  being,  so  far  as  the  quality  of  property  is 
concerned,  that  the  one  is  temporary  and  the  other  during  life.  Whence  then 
does  the  honorable  Senator  from  Vermont  derive  his  opinion,  that  a  slave  is  not 
property. 


13 

Cut  the  deduction  drawn  by  that  honorable  Senator  is  equally  untenable. 
Proceeding  upon  the  assumption,  that  slavery  is  a  mere  ''incident  to  a  domestic 
relation,"  he  argues,  that  it  can  exist  only  where  such  "domestic  relation"  is  re- 
cognized by  law  ;  and  that  in  consequence,  when  a  slave  is  taken  to  a  State 
where  there  is  no  such  relation,  he  becomes  free. 

Sir,  I  think  I  have  established  as  a  legal  proposition  the  very  opposite.  When 
the  condition  of  the  subject  is  that  of  bondage,  whether  it  be  temporary  or  per- 
petual, it  is  recognized  by  law,  and  enforced  as  a  legal  right.  And  if  it  be  the 
case  of  a  slave,  such  slave  becomes  free,  when  taken  to  a  country,  or  State,  only, 
where  such  servitude  is  forbidden,  or  prohibited  by  express  local  law.  It  follows, 
then,  that  while  no  special  law  is  required  to  create  this  species  of  bondage,  it 
does  require  positive  or  special  law,  to  destroy  it ;  and  such  laws  have  been  pass- 
ed in  all  the  States  where  slavery  has  been  prohibited. 

Mr.  Walker. — Will  the  honorable  Senotor  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question? 

Mr.  Mason, — Certainly. 

Mr.  Walker. — Does  the  Senator  mean  to  say,  that  slavery  is  the  natural  con- 
dition ol  man,  and  that  manumission,  is  a  mere  step  in  the.  progress  of  an  artifi- 
cial condition. 

Mr.  Mason. — I  am  unaware  that  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  can  draw  that 
deduction  from  any  thing  said  by  me. 

Mr.  Walker. — My  deduction  may  not  be  the  same  that  the  Senator  himself 
would  draw.     I  merely  ask,  in   order  to    get  an  explanation  of  the  honorable 
Senator's  views. 

Mr.  Mason. — The  proposition  I  assert  is  this  :  that  the  African  population 
brought  to  the  shores  of  North  America  in  bondage,  and  sold  to  the  inhabitants 
as  bondsmen,  brought  slavery  as  their  condition  from  the  shores  of  Africa,  and 
the  law  recognized  it  here.  That  is  all.  What  the  natural  condition  of  these 
people  in  Africa  may  have  been,  the  Senator  may  determine  lor  himself;  but 
where  the  condition  of  bondage  is  once  fixed,  that  condition  is  recognized  by 
law,  unless  there  be  a  statute  to  the  contrary.  It  is  said,  that  in  Africa  this  relict 
of  barbarism,  which  places  the  captive  at  the  absolute  disposal  of  the  captor, 
remains,  and  the  larger  portion  of  slaves  sent  over  to  this  country  before  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  trade  were  those  taken  in  battle  or  seize il  by  the  strong  arm  of 
power.  The  proposition  I  assert  is,  that  let  their  condition  result  from  what  it 
might,  they  brought  it  with  them  from  Africa.  It  was  given  to  them,  fixed  upon 
them  there  ;  and  all  that  was  done  in  this  country  was  to  recognize  it.  There 
never  was  a  law  in  Virginia  creating  slavery ;  and  I  doubt  if  there  has  been 
such  a  law  in  any  ol  the  Southern  States.     There  is  no  necessity  for  such  a  law. 

Suffer  me  now,  sir,  to  sum  up  the  argument  I  have  advanced.  This  institu- 
tion existed  when  the  Constitution  was  formed.  It  was  recognized,  it  was  legis- 
lated upon,  it  was  made  the  subject  of  concession  on  one  side,  and  equivalent  on 
the  other.  There  was  assigned  to  it,  a  representative  weight,  as  an  element  of 
political  power  in  the  Southern  States.  It  was  guaranteed  to  those  States  by  the 
Constitution,  and  it  can  never  be  tolerated,  that  a  power  in  Congress  to  legislate 
for  the  territories — a  power  deduced  from  necssity  only,  and  temporary  in  its 
exercise,  (for  it  ceases  when  the  territory  becomes  a  State,)  should  be  wrested 
from  its  legitimate  ends,  and  made  to  unsettle  the  balances  of  the  Constitution, 
and  to  destroy  its  guarantees.  To  give  it  such  direction,  would  be  in  outrage  of 
all  just  legal  construction,  and  of  every  sense  of  political  right  in  the  States  in- 
terested. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  has  said,  that  there  is  a  line  of  unbroken  prece- 
dents, from  the  first  enactments  for  territories  under  the  Constitution,  down  to  this 
day,  establishing  the  right  in  Congress,  which  is  now  contended  for  by  him. 

Sir,  I  have  examined  with  care,  the  laws  which  he  has  advanced  as  precedents, 
and  I  utterly  deny  that  they  touch  the  right  in  question — save  in  the  single  in- 
stance, of  the  act  of  1820,  for  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri, known  as  an  exception,  by  the  name  of  the  "Missouri  compromise." 


14 

The  first  law  cited  by  the  Senator  as  a  precedent,  is  the  act  of  August  7th, 
1789,  entitled  "  an  act  to  provide  for  the  government  of  the  territory  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  river." 

This  act  does  nothing  more,  than  make  provision  for  adapting  the  obligations, 
&c.  of  the  ordinance  of  '87  "  to  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States," 
in  order  that  it  may  "  continue  to  have  full  effect."  It  was  necessary  to  do  this, 
in  order  to  continue  in  force  within  that  territory,  the  compact  contained  in  that 
ordinance,  as  made  by  the  Continental  Congress — and  the  act  was  passed  in 
obedience  to  the  sixth  article  of  the  Constitution,  which  is  in  these  words  : 

"All  debts  contracted  and  engagements  entered  into,  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United  States  under  this  Constitution,  asunder  the  Confederation." 

The  ordinance  of '87  was  one  of  these  "engagements" — and  the  act  of  1789, 
did  nothing  more  than  to  continue  it  in  force,  under  the  new  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

I  have  already  spoken  at  large  in  respect  to  this  ordinance  of  '87 — it  was 
made,  and  ordained,  as  the  law  governing  the  Northwest  Territory,  before  the 
present  Constitution  was  formed — its  sanction  was  derived  frcm  the  Congress  of 
the  "Confederation" — ond  that  sanction  was  recognized  by  the  sixth  article  of 
the  Constitution,  and  thus  became  a  mandate  to  the  new  Government.  When 
Congress  then,  in  1789,  and  subsequently,  legislated  for  the  government  of  the 
territories,  or  any  of  them,  to  the  northwest  of  the  Ohio  river ;  it  legislated  in 
subordination  to  the  ordinance  of '87 — and  it  follows  as  that  ordinance  prohibit- 
ed slavery,  such  prohibition  was  paramount  to  the  authority  of  Congress.  The 
States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  were  carved  out  of 
this  Northwest  Territory,  and  no  precedent  of  constitutional  power  affecting  the 
the  question  of  slavery,  can  be  drawn  from  any  act  of  Congress,  for  the  organ- 
ization or  government  of  the  territories,  out  of  which  either  of  these  States 
was  form  Dd. 

The  act  of  March,  1804,  erecting  the  territorial  government  of  Lousiana  and 
Orleans  is  next  cited  by  the  Senator  from  New  York.  It  is  true,  sir,  that  this 
act  regulated  the  admission  of  slaves  into  tho?e  Territories,  but  it  expressly  au- 
thorized, what  the  South  now  contends  for,  viz  :  the  importation  of  slaves  by  a 
"  citizen  of  tLe  United  States,  removing  into  said  territory  for  actual  settlement,, 
and  being  at  the  time  of  such  removal  bona  fide  owner  of  such  slaves."  The 
prohibitions  were  only  to  the  importation  of  slaves  from  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
United  States,  in  other  words,  a  prohibition  of  the  foreign  slave  trade;  and  of 
slaves  which  had  been  imported  into  the  United  States  since  the  1st  of  May, 
1798.  The  cause  of  this  last  restriction  I  have  not  been  able  to  trace,  but  I 
have  been  told,  that  it  was  referrible  to  some  treaty  stipulations  between  France 
and  Spain,  from  which  latter,  the  province  had  been  derived. 

The  laws  for  the  government  of  the  Territory  of  Mississippi,  which  was  ce- 
ded by  South  Carolina  ;  of  Alabama,  which  was  ceded  in  part  by  South  Caro- 
lina, and  in  part  by  Georgia  ;  and  of  Arkansas,  which  was  part  of  Louisiana, 
contain  no  prohibition  against  citizens  of  any  of  the  States,  removing  into  those 
Territories  for  settlement,  with  their  slaves. 

In  the  instance  of  Iowa,  which  was  erected  into  a  separate  Territory  by  act  of 
June,  1838,  the  law  scrupulously  refrained  from  this  prohibition  of  slavery,  al- 
though it  was  formed  of  territory  subject  to  the  restriction  of  the  Missouri  com- 
promise act,  being  a  part  of  the  Missouri  Territory,  lying  north  of  the  parallel 
of  36°  30'.  Jjv  the  act  of  April  20,  1836,  establishing  a  territorial  government 
for  Wisconsin,  (which  was  part  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  and  thus  subject  ta 
the  ordinance  of  '87,)  ihe  inhabitants  were  declared 

" — entitled  to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  advantages  granted  and  secured  by  the  ordinance 
of '87,  and  subject  to  all  the  conditions,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions  in  said  articles  imposed.'' 

Whereas,  by  the  act  for  the  government  of  Iowa,  the  "  rights,  privileges,  and 
immunities  granted  and  secured  to  the  inhabitants  of  Wisconsin,"  are  extended 


16 

to  the  people  of  Iowa,  but  without  the  "conditions,  restrictions,  and  prohibi- 
tions," of  the  same  ordinance. 

Thus,  sir,  after  reviewing  all  the  acts  cited  by  the  honorable  Senator  from 
New  York,  and  to  which  he  refers  as  "  a  current  of  authority  uninterrupted  and 
almost  unopposed  through  more  than  half  a  century,  down  to  the  present  day," 
we  find  not  one,  extending  the  prohibition  now  contended  for,  save  that  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  in  1820,  and  which  stands  as  a  marked  exception. 

Sir,  I  will  not  go  over  the  history  of  this  act  of  1820.  It  presents  the  only 
instance  since  the  foundation  of  this  Government  in  1788,  when,  by  law,  slaves, 
accompanied  by  their  owners, Were  excluded  from  any  territory  belonging  to 
the  United  States.  And  although  it  was  passed  in  violation  of  the  third  article 
of  the  treaty  with  France,  of  1803,  by  which  the  terrilory  was  ceded  to  the  Uni- 
ted States — which  treaty  was  the  "  supreme  law  of  the  land  f*  and  further^  as 
I  conceive,  in  derogation  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  South- 
ern States,  yet,  as  it  was  agreed  to  as  a  compromise  by  the  South,  for  the  sake 
of  the  Union,  I  would  be  the  last  to  disturb  it. 

Power,  Mr.  President,  is  never  appeased  by  concession  ;  and  we  are  now 
reaping  the  bitter  fruits  of  the  concessions  then  made  by  the  South.  How 
strikingly  is  illustrated,  by  this  renewed  struggle,  the  predictions  of  Mr.  Jefferson, 
in  his  letter  of  April,  1^20,  in  which,  speaking  of  the  Missouri  question,  he  says  : 

"  The  coincidence  of  a  marked  principle,  moral  and  political,  with  a  geographical  line  once 
conceived,  I  feared  would  never  more  be  obliterated  from  the  mind  ;  that  it  would  be  recurring 
on  every  occasion,  and  renewing  irritations,  until  it  would  kindle  such  mutual  and  mortal  Ha- 
tred, as  to  render  separation  preferable  to  eternal  discord." 

Sir,  the  prophecy  is  fulfilled.  There  is  a  party  organized,  or  in  course  of  or- 
ganization at  the  North,  lifting  itself  erect  on  the  pending  canvass  for  the  Presi- 
dency, on  whose  banner  is  inscribed,  as  the  sole  rallying  cry,  "destruction  to 
the  slave  power."  We  have  seen  the  preliminary  chart  of  that  party  in  the 
manifesto  of  its  convention  recently  held  at  Utica,  in  New  York,  in  which  all 
parties  are  invited  at  the  North,  to  abandon  all  subjects  of  former  dissension, 
and  to  unite  in  a  common  crusade  to  break  down  the  institutions  of  the  South. 
Sir,  the  Senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Dix,)  stands  the  exponent  of  that  party 
in  this  Senate-house — a  party  whose  mission  is,  to  divide  the  North  and  South 
on  this  question  of  the  so-called  "  slave  power."  Already  we  have  had  three 
remarkable  documents,  shadowing  forth  their  plan  of  campaign. 

The  first,  is  a  letter  from  Martin  Van  Buren,  addressed  in  reply  to  the  "dele- 
gates of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York"  to  the  Utica  Convention,  sketching 
in  advance  the  principles  and  policy  of  the  party,  in  embryo. 

Next  comes  the  speech  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  New  York,  following 
step  by  step  the  landmarks  there  laid  down,  and  denouncing  any  extension  of 
slavery,  into  territories  where  it  is  not  now  found,  as  of  "  evil  tendency,  icrong 
in  itself,  and  repugnant  to  the  humanity  and  the  civilization  of  the  age." 

And  last,  the  manifesto  of  the  Utica  Convention. 

I  trust,  sir,  that  Senators  on  all  sides  have  read  this  paper  with  attention,  be- 
cause it  develops,  in  extenso,  the  principles  and  purposes  of  this  new  Northern 
party;  avows  its  objects  to  be,  to  get  possession  of  the  Government  of  the  Union 
for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  political  weight  of  "  the  slave  representation," 
and  assigns  their  appropriate  duties,  to  its  recognized  leaders.  And,  more  than 
all,  it  denounces  the  old  and  healthy  issues  which  hav3  heretofore  divided  par- 
ties, as  no  longer  worthy  of  consideration,  and  calls  upon  former  friends,  and 
former  foes,  to  unite  alike  in  a  great  concerted  effort,  to  break  down  the  barriers 
of  the  Constitution. 

To  prove  this,  sir,  I  may  be  pardoned  for  making  a  single  extract  from  the 
document,  where  it  will  be  found  under  the  head  of  "  Duty  of  the  Fiee  Stales," 
and  in  these  words  : 

"  If,  from  these,  or  any  other  causes,  the  people  of  the  free  States  have  suffered  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  South,  or  of  the  world,  the  time  has  now  come  when  they  owe  it  to  themselves,  and 
to  the  nation,  to  redeem  their  character  from  this  reproach.    Both  the  late  political  parties  have 


16 


the  opportunity  to  do,  and  they  are  called  upon  to  do  this  ;  they  may  unite  in  the  effort  withe 
any  abandonment  of  their  distinctive  principles.  The  old  issues,  which  for  the  last  twenty  yes 
have  divided  them,  are  now  settled  or  set  aside  ;  a  new  issue  has  been  presented,  in  which 
minor  differences — and  in  which  differences  that,  under  circumstances,  would  be  important-] 
are  merged  and  swallowed  up. 

"  It  is  important,  too,  that  this  effort  should  now  be  made,  and  that,  if  possible,  it  should 
made  to  succeed.     Resist  the  beginning,  is  the  maxim  of  political,  not  less  than  moral  sciend 
This  is  the  firat  time  since  the  formation  ot  the  Government  that  the  slave  power,  whilst  retaij 
ing  its  distinct  political   associations  with   the  two  great  national  parties,  has  been  able  to  seij 
and  to  sway  the  sceptres  of  each.     If  the  people  of  the  free  States  understand  and  perform  thd 
duty,  such  an  exhibition  will  never  again  be  witnessed." 

Mr.  President,  these  are  vtfords  of  fearful  omen.     We  are  already  aware  th| 
ten  States  of  this  confederacy  have,  through  their  legislative  assemblies,  calle 
upon  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  maintain  this  interdict  against  the  e| 
tension  of  Southern   institutions  to  the   new  territories.     And  here  we  have 
proclamation  by  a  party,  said  to  be  of  formidable  numbers,  in  the  great  State 
New  York,  separating  themselves  from  all  former  political  alliance,  arrayed 
der  leaders  of  known  distinction,  burying  all  former  topics  of  political  dissensu 
and  proclaiming  as  the  great  bond  of  future  union,  exterminating  war  to  "  slal 
power."  And  for  what  objects  is  a  party  to  be  thus  marshalled  1     For  the  publ 
weal — the  common  good  ?  Sir,  let  not  words  so  dear  to  Republicans  be  profan] 
by  such  unholy  perversion.     To  advance  the  cause  of  freedom  and  free  gove] 
ment  ?     No,  no  !      When  was  freedom  born  of  tyranny — whether  it  be  the 
ranny  of  one  or  of  many  ? 

The  evil  day,  long  looked  for  and  dreaded  by  the  sages  and  patriots  of  the  lad 
dawns  darkly  through  this  proclamation — when  a  line  shall  be  drawn  betwej 
the   North  and  South,  and  a  party  resting  on  geographical  division  alone  sh 
march  up  to  it,  as  the  line  of  power.     This  is  the  party  which  the  Utica  maj 
festo  seeks  to  rally. 

Mr.  President,  I  appeal  to  the  States  of  New  England.     Will  they  lend  th< 
selves  to  minister  to  the  lust  of  dominion,  which  alone   actuates  this   nortlu 
schism.     To    Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and    Rhode    Island.     To   Vermel 
which  sprung  from  the  loins  of  New  York,  midst  the  throes  of  the  Revoluti( 
as  the  fabled  goddess  from  the  head  of  Jupiter,  fully  armed  for  the  combat. 

Sir,  if  the  appeal  be  vain,  and  the  conquest  be  achieved  by  their  aid,  it  ne( 
no  Cassandra  gift  to  foretell  what  their  doom  shall  be  when  the  battle  is  fouj 
and  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  are  broken  down  and  destroyed.  Tl 
will  share  the  fate  of  all  weaker  allies.  The  bonds  of  the  Federal  Union  v] 
lently  disruptured,  what  shall  keep  these  humbler  planets  in  the  independei 
of  appropriate  orbits?  L?t  them  look  at  the  power,  wealth,  and  position  of  llij 
self- proclaimed  leader;  already  rejoicing  in  the  proud  distinction  of  the  "Emj 
State,"  as  it  is  ostentatiously  pourtrayed  at  Utica,  and  see  in  it  their  own  hopeh 
and  deserved  annihilation,  when  the  work  of  disunion  is  achieved.  Yes,  sir,  N| 
York  will  then  stand  amongst  them  as  the  "chief,"  and  they  the  vassal  republi 

I  quote  from  the  Utica  address  : 

"  New  York,  with  a  territory  possessing  boundless  advantages  for  foreign  and  internal  tn 
with  a  temperate  and  healthful  sky,  and  with  extensive  districts  of  fertile  soils;  with  abun< 
supplies  of  salt  and  iron,  and  peculiar  facilities  for  every  kind  of  manufacturing  industry  ;  wij 
population  greater  now  than  that  of  England  at  the  era  of  American  colonization,  and  wl 
may  well  be  increased  within  her  borders  to  four  times  its  present  number  ;  with  several  maH 
internal  trade, numbering  respectively  from  twenty  to  fifty  thousand  inhabitants;  and,  toweij 
above  them  all,  in  queenly  pride,  the  commercial  metropolis  of  this  hemisphere  ;  with  a  for 
commerce  that  brings  to  the  federal  Government  more  than  one-third  of  its  revenues  by  impc 
with  these  resources,  in  possession  and  in  prospect,  what  shall  hinder  her,  if  the  nulhfiers  of  | 
Constitution  and  the  abolitionists  of  freedom — the  blind  leaders  of  the  blind — shall,  by  acci(| 
or  design,  drive  on  their  fo'lowers  to  the  sin  and  folly  of  secession,  from  being  and  remaining 
chief  of  the  new  Republics  into  which  the  American  States  will  then  be  parcelled  out." 

But,  sir,  I  pursue  this  ungrateful  theme  no  further.     I  yet  confide  in  the 
generative  spirit  of  republican  virtue  at  the  North,  to  consign  to  deserved  ol 
quy,  this  first  attempt  to  array  the  Republics  of  the  Confederacy  against  c| 
other,  in  a  sheer  struggle  for  power. 


Mzs 


flSB^P 


& 


faBsMFh 


K&3&ii$ 


